User:Khash195/Chlosyne leanira/Victotp1 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

I am peer reviewing Kiana Hashemi's Wikipedia contributions.

Username: Khash195


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Khash195/Chlosyne_leanira?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Chlosyne leanira

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead
The lead has been updated by Kiana to reflect the new contributions to this Wikipedia article. The very first sentence of the lead is a concise and clear sentence regarding the species Chlosyne leanira. To me, this is an appropriate sentence to describe the topic of this Wikipedia article. The lead also includes brief descriptions of all major sections of the article. If I were to make one suggestion about the brief descriptions, it would be to consider including more information in the lead about the section "Phylogenetic Relationships". It seems like there is room for more description of that section in the lead.

I did notice that the Lead includes some information that is not present in the article. Specifically, I did not see the last two sentences of the lead further elaborated on in the remainder of the Wikipedia article. But based on the view history, I did see that one of the two sources cited in these two sentences was added by a previous user and not Kiana, hence why it may have not been further elaborated in in future sections.

The Lead is concise and is not overly detailed. The level of detail is appropriate to maintain the briefness of the Lead but also convey important descriptions of sections in the article.

Content
All the content Kiana added is very relevant to the topic and up-to-date. All the content belongs, and all of Kiana's contributions positively contribute to this Wikipedia topic. This article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps and it is not related to historically underrepresented populations or topics.

Kiana did a great job with the all sections. Personally, I really enjoyed viewing the physical descriptions section because the images that are added are very relevant and supplemental to a viewer's understanding of the material. I also found the content in the Food section to be interesting because I was not aware that species could have a variety of flower preferences.

All in all, in terms of content, I was very impressed by how well supported Kiana's contributions are by well selected sources.

Tone and Balance
All the contributions Kiana made are neutral. I was not able to locate any claims that appeared to be heavily biased towards a particular position. All the contributions Kiana made were factual and appropriate for a Wikipedia contribution. I did not notice any viewpoints that were particularly overrepresented or underrepresented. All sections that were contributed were equally represented and all well supported by sources. I did not feel persuaded by any of the contributions that Kiana made. The tone of Kiana's contributions are neutral and well balanced in terms of the length of each contribution and the sources that are used to support each contribution.

Sources and References
Yes, all the new content that was added to this Wikipedia page is backed up by reliable sources of information and the content does accurately reflect what is presented in the cited sources. The selected sources were appropriate sources for a Wikipedia article, they were thorough and current. I did see one source from 1960, but the remainder of the sources were published in the 2000s. I am unsure as to whether any of these sources were written by historically marginalized individuals, but I do know based off of my experience looking for sources that some species are very limited by the sources that are available. It seems that Kiana did a thorough job finding appropriate sources for her topic that are consistent with Wikipedia guidelines for sources that are considered appropriate.

I do not think there are better sources available. Kiana included sources that are peer-reviewed articles, I did not see any of her sources that were news coverage or random websites.

I did check several sources and all the links that I checked worked. I was able to view all the sources that I checked out.

Organization
Yes, the content is well-written. All the content that Kiana contributed is concise, clear, and easy to read.

Kiana's contributions were very thoroughly reviewed. I did not see any grammatical or spelling errors.

The content added is also well-organized and broken into appropriate sections that contribute to the major points of the topic.

Images and Media
Yes, Kiana did include images that enhance my understanding of the topic. Especially, the images under the physical description heading. Those images were great and really supplemental to my understanding as I am a visual learner.

The images that were added were all appropriately and well-captioned.

Yes, these images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.

Yes, the images are laid out in a visually appealing way. I really appreciated that all the images under the physical description are laid out in a row. It makes it very easy to compare and contrast the images and easy to read from left to right.

Overall Impressions
After reviewing the View History, I would absolutely say that the content added by Kiana has improved the overall quality of this article. The article is definitely more complete than it was before Kiana's contributions. The strengths of the content added are the content is concise, neutral, balanced, and well supported. Another strength is that the content added was very relevant and improved the quality of this article. I was very impressed by how many sources Kiana added and by how well supported all the information she added was by peer-reviewed sources. Kiana definitely took the time to investigate the literature about this species and combine sources into a very cohesive contribution to Wikipedia.

The content can be improved slightly by including a bit more detail in the Lead about the "Phylogenetic Relationships" section. I noticed that that section was missing just a little bit from the Lead. Secondly, I think it would be a great idea to include images of the different flower preferences under the Food section so readers of this article can visualize the flowers. I thought it was a great idea to hyperlink the species as Kiana did, but I also think it would be great to include images to the side or below the section so readers are able to view the flowers at first glance.

Another way to improve the article would also be to include images of some of the places that are described in the Distribution section, such as Hall Canyon, Sierra Nevada, and Siskiyou Mountains, just to name a few. I am someone who appreciates visualizes so to me, the more the merrier.

All in all, Kiana did a very thorough and detailed job on her Wikipedia contribution. I was very impressed by her work!